A generation ago, the equivalent was jumping into a thread about some television series and loudly proclaiming, "Is this something I would need a TV to understand??" Some people just can't help moral policing. The original virtue signal.
Your consumption of television contributes to the corporatocracy, ad agencies, and the capitalist free market system that is bringing society and the environment down. There is no ethical consumption of television.
No consumption is ethical, but some things are a lot less harmful than others. Like if some TV show gave the creators PTSD like working in a slaughterhouse does, it would be reasonable to shit on that show and bully people into not watching it.
It's not really a competition, but slaughterhouse PTSD probably pales in comparison to the PTSD suffered at the hands of Hollywood's penchant for "turning" young starlets.
like eighty percent of my tv knowledge is saturday morning cartoons from when i was a kid and the rest is knowledge i osmosed from other people talking about things i dont understand or showing me bootlegged anime subs on a projector while saying "do you see? do you see?"
i just want you to know why i dont know wtf the tv reference joke you made meant bb im sorry
Til the animal agriculture industry doesn't contribute to the most land use greenhouse gas emissions of any single industry. The industry that's destroying the Amazon for cattle grazing displacing indigenous communities. And literal trillions of conscious beings have no moral worth. Wild
Which accounts for a whopping 11.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions, including plant agriculture and forestry. And even then most of that is CO2 emissions which can be addressed without changing how we eat. I'd rather focus on CO2.
The industry that’s destroying the Amazon for cattle grazing displacing indigenous communities.
Yeah, that's shit and shouldn't happen, but that's capitalism in general and not a necessity of meat production.
First of all 11.6% is a significant portion of emmissions and an individual can reduce their carbon impact much more than that on average by being vegan given most do not participate in many of the much more c02 intense industries(per capita). And no we can pick changing the c02 or the land use. Cattle either need tons of land to graze grass or need to be fed grains/legumes like soy which is also destroying the amazon and 85% of soy production is for the animal ag industry. This isnt even mentioning the methane cattle releases. In addition if you recall your bio class energy is converted at an effeciency of 10% for each trophic level so we use 10 times the land for an equivalent amount of calories(which sidenote meat is the leading carcinogen in western countries and contributes to diabetes and most importantly heart disease) we simply do not have enough land in western countries to grow feed for these animals so we outsource(read imperialize) production in the global south.
Individual climate action is useless. It's the industries that need to be changed.
we simply do not have enough land in western countries to grow feed for these animals
We absolutely do. America alone is mostly huge swaths of nothingness. And land use itself doesn't automatically equal greenhouse gas emissions.
This isn't even mentioning the methane cattle releases.
Methane in general accounts for 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 is 80%. You may disagree that the 10% doesn't need to be addressed, but that doesn't make your position the definitely morally correct one.
Individual action changes the incentives for thise industries to operate. Again there is no ethical consumption under capitalism doesn't mean all consumption is equally unethical. And no we don't have that land america is the closest but one a lot of it is unsuitable for grazing for various reasons(hilly not the right climate etc.) Second that land is also stolen and to feed our current meat consumption if we were to produce all of our own feed we would need to deforest large swaths of our untouched land to prepare land to plant grain wr badically level it to nothing it would mean mass deforestation and increased use of pesticides to keep crop yields up damaging the environment further. Methane also traps heat up to 100 times more in a five year period than c02 and again the animal ag industry is the single biggest producer of greenhouse gasses bar none including c02
Animal agriculture accounts for as much as 85% of emissions from agriculture as a whole. And aknowledging market forces exist isn't like anti leftist lmao it's just not the most effecient way to allocate resources when your goal is to have the best outcomes for the most amount of people. Leftism doesn't like deny supply and demand exist lmao they are clearly mechanisms in capitalist economy they just aren't mechanisms designed to serve the interests of the global working class
85% of 24% is 20.4%. Most of that being CO2 from electricity and transportation. Which, again, can be addressed without changing how we eat. Methane emissions just aren't significant enough to require a lifestyle change much larger than what is needed to address the much more important CO2 emissions.
A generation ago, the equivalent was jumping into a thread about some television series and loudly proclaiming, "Is this something I would need a TV to understand??" Some people just can't help moral policing. The original virtue signal.
there actually is a sound ethical and ecological basis to veganism beyond pure moralizing tho. seems like a false equivalency
but hard agree that the “sorry, i don’t own a television” crowd were annoying as fuck
Your consumption of television contributes to the corporatocracy, ad agencies, and the capitalist free market system that is bringing society and the environment down. There is no ethical consumption of television.
No consumption is ethical, but some things are a lot less harmful than others. Like if some TV show gave the creators PTSD like working in a slaughterhouse does, it would be reasonable to shit on that show and bully people into not watching it.
It's not really a competition, but slaughterhouse PTSD probably pales in comparison to the PTSD suffered at the hands of Hollywood's penchant for "turning" young starlets.
That's why I pirate everything
spoiler
^^Also cuz I'm poor af lol
:sadness: but i dont watch tv.
like eighty percent of my tv knowledge is saturday morning cartoons from when i was a kid and the rest is knowledge i osmosed from other people talking about things i dont understand or showing me bootlegged anime subs on a projector while saying "do you see? do you see?"
i just want you to know why i dont know wtf the tv reference joke you made meant bb im sorry
Removed by mod
Til the animal agriculture industry doesn't contribute to the most land use greenhouse gas emissions of any single industry. The industry that's destroying the Amazon for cattle grazing displacing indigenous communities. And literal trillions of conscious beings have no moral worth. Wild
Which accounts for a whopping 11.6% of total greenhouse gas emissions, including plant agriculture and forestry. And even then most of that is CO2 emissions which can be addressed without changing how we eat. I'd rather focus on CO2.
Yeah, that's shit and shouldn't happen, but that's capitalism in general and not a necessity of meat production.
First of all 11.6% is a significant portion of emmissions and an individual can reduce their carbon impact much more than that on average by being vegan given most do not participate in many of the much more c02 intense industries(per capita). And no we can pick changing the c02 or the land use. Cattle either need tons of land to graze grass or need to be fed grains/legumes like soy which is also destroying the amazon and 85% of soy production is for the animal ag industry. This isnt even mentioning the methane cattle releases. In addition if you recall your bio class energy is converted at an effeciency of 10% for each trophic level so we use 10 times the land for an equivalent amount of calories(which sidenote meat is the leading carcinogen in western countries and contributes to diabetes and most importantly heart disease) we simply do not have enough land in western countries to grow feed for these animals so we outsource(read imperialize) production in the global south.
Individual climate action is useless. It's the industries that need to be changed.
We absolutely do. America alone is mostly huge swaths of nothingness. And land use itself doesn't automatically equal greenhouse gas emissions.
Methane in general accounts for 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. CO2 is 80%. You may disagree that the 10% doesn't need to be addressed, but that doesn't make your position the definitely morally correct one.
Individual action changes the incentives for thise industries to operate. Again there is no ethical consumption under capitalism doesn't mean all consumption is equally unethical. And no we don't have that land america is the closest but one a lot of it is unsuitable for grazing for various reasons(hilly not the right climate etc.) Second that land is also stolen and to feed our current meat consumption if we were to produce all of our own feed we would need to deforest large swaths of our untouched land to prepare land to plant grain wr badically level it to nothing it would mean mass deforestation and increased use of pesticides to keep crop yields up damaging the environment further. Methane also traps heat up to 100 times more in a five year period than c02 and again the animal ag industry is the single biggest producer of greenhouse gasses bar none including c02
This is an extremely liberal take. I'm not even going to argue it.
The 10% figure is in "CO2 Equivalent", basically normalized for its effect on the atmosphere.
This is just plain false. Agriculture as a whole accounts for 10% of greenhouse gas emmisions.
Edit: To use global emissions instead: "Agriculture, Forestry, and other land use" is 24%, so animal ag is a fraction of that.
Animal agriculture accounts for as much as 85% of emissions from agriculture as a whole. And aknowledging market forces exist isn't like anti leftist lmao it's just not the most effecient way to allocate resources when your goal is to have the best outcomes for the most amount of people. Leftism doesn't like deny supply and demand exist lmao they are clearly mechanisms in capitalist economy they just aren't mechanisms designed to serve the interests of the global working class
85% of 24% is 20.4%. Most of that being CO2 from electricity and transportation. Which, again, can be addressed without changing how we eat. Methane emissions just aren't significant enough to require a lifestyle change much larger than what is needed to address the much more important CO2 emissions.
Except there is.
deleted by creator